Why This Is the Year to Begin Addressing the Infrastructure Deficit
Date Posted: January 21, 2019
Posted In: Discussion,
From Governing: by Michael Pagano
Ever since the 2016 presidential campaign, pundits have thought that, above the fray of hyper-partisanship, federal legislation that would address the deterioration of our infrastructure would rally lawmakers of both parties. So far, of course, no such legislation has been seriously considered, even though most of us encounter some form of infrastructure dysfunction nearly every day.
The issue is even more pressing now as we face the likelihood of an economic downturn. Public-works spending early on, just as a downturn gets underway, can go a long way toward dampening its severity while simultaneously addressing very real needs.
The list of those needs just begins with potholes, leaking water mains, congested streets and rusting bridges. Even if we discount the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2017 estimate of the nation’s infrastructure investment deficit as little better than a stab in the dark — is $4.6 trillion, the number ASCE uses, even fathomable? — it’s clear that the management of our infrastructure has been flawed or in some cases ignored.
If and when something emerges from Congress, state and local governments would have to be partners with the feds in managing any new infrastructure initiative. After all, the majority of the nation’s non-military infrastructure falls under the auspices of cities, counties and states.
But, even if such a bill were to pass, there are hitches. First, whatever the design of a federal infrastructure bill — an outright grant to states and localities, matching grants or competitive grants — assessments of such spending often conclude that federal money only substitutes for state and local money. That means that no more infrastructure would actually be built than would have been in the absence of the grant (academics refer to this as the “substitution” effect).